czech forum for development co-operation – fors graphics ... · graphics: jan Žaloudek, denisa...

This is an official report from the Pre-Presidency Workshop / study visit to the Czech Republic on 15-17 June 2010 and the workshop held on 18 November 2010 in Warsaw

Reporter: Elżbieta Kaca, the Institute of Public AffairsReport finalized on: 15 December 2010Published by: Czech Forum for Development Co-operation – FoRSBělehradská 92, 120 00, Prague 2Tel.: +420 222 522 [email protected] www.fors.czGraphics: Jan Žaloudek, Denisa KuglerováPrint: Com4t

This report summarizes the outputs from two events, namely the study visit to Czech Republic held on 15-17 June 2010 and the Czech-Polish Roundtable held on 18 November 2010. The events were organized by FoRS – Czech Forum for Development Co-operation and Prague Global Policy Institute – Glopolis in partnership with Zagranica Group, HAND, CAN Europe, ActionAid, Heinrich Boll Stiftung and CONCORD.

It received financial assistance from the European Union, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic and the Czech – Polish Forum. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Commission, or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic.

CONTENT

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................3

2. Role of Presidency in the Council for development NGOs............................................................................................4

3. The impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the Presidency and development....................................................................5

4. Advocacy Strategy for the EU Presidency...........................................................................................................................6

4.1 Setting up cooperation with international Platforms..................................................................................8

4.2 Mapping the Current Debates in Development Agenda............................................................................9

4.3 Mapping of Current Institutional Set-up for Development Issues.........................................................10

4.4 Consultations of National Platform and National

Administration on the Presidency Priorities..................................................................................................11

4.5 Consultations of CSOs on their presidency Priorities.................................................................................12

4.6 Preparation of the PresidencyAgenda.............................................................................................................12

4.7 Planning of the Presidency Activities..................................................................................................................13

4.8 Managing the Presidency Project.......................................................................................................................14

5. Selected Topics Relevant for 2011 Presidencies.............................................................................................................16

5.1 The EU Multiannual Financial Framework and the Role of NGOs............................................................16

5.2 Development Effectiveness..................................................................................................................................19

5.3 Democracy and Development............................................................................................................................21

5.4 Combating Climate Change.................................................................................................................................24

6. ANNEX 1 – Polish/Hungarian/Czech official government/platform priorities.......................................................25

7. ANNEX 2 – Development Topics and Processes in 2011.............................................................................................27

8. ANNEX 3 – Timeframe and Description of Crucial Development Events in 2011...............................................28

9. ANNEX 4 – Climate Change...................................................................................................................................................30

10. ANNEX 5 – The EU Multiannual Financial Framework...............................................................................................31

11. ANNEX 6 – Key Links and Contacts..................................................................................................................................32

2

ABBREVIATIONS

AAA Accra Agenda for Action

CODEV Working Party on Development Cooperation (under the Council, formerly Council of the EU)

COHAFA Working Party on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid

COHOM Working Party on Human Rights

CONCORD European NGO Confederation for Relief and Development

CRBM Italian campaign “campagna per la riforma della banca mondiale”

CSO Civil Society Organization

DG Directorate General

EC European Commission

EEAS European External Action Service

ENP European Neighbourhood Policy

EP European Parliament

EU European Union

EU-12 Member states, which joined EU after 2004, also called new member states

EU-15 Member states which joined EU before 2004, also called old member states

ETS Emission Trading Scheme

FAC Foreign Affairs Council

FoRS Czech Forum for Development Co-operation

GAC General Affairs Council

GAERC General Affairs and External Relations Council

GFG Global Facilitation Group

HAND Hungarian Association of NGOs for Development and Humanitarian Aid

MEPs Members of European Parliament

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MFF Multiannual Financial Framework

MS Member State

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

ODA Official Development Assistance

PCD Policy Coherence for Development

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

3

1. INTRODUCTION

Presidencies in the former Council of the EU provide an opportunity for presidency-holding countries to gain an improved European perspective and at the same time to contribute to the EU discussion with their national expertise. It is also an excellent opportunity to strengthen the capacities of the national platforms and their members as well as to build new EU-wide alliances. Therefore, it is crucial to exchange the experiences both between the “old” (EU-15) and “new” (EU-12) as well as among the EU-12 national and international platforms and their members in development with the aim to learn about recent development on the EU level and to understand how to use the presidency to strengthen advocacy work.

Bearing in mind such a goal, a pre-presidency workshop and study visit to Prague took place on 15-17 June in which nearly 20 Polish and Hungarian CSO representatives participated. In particular, the objectives were to share experiences with the Czech presidency both on the policy/advocacy and project levels. Moreover, the study visit focused on two main global issues with significant impact at the EU level in 2009 - development effectiveness agenda – especially CSO development effectiveness – and climate change negotiations. This programme enabled reflection on national platforms´ priorities and plans for the presidency in light of the Czech experience and initiated discussion of a potential cooperation with respect to Hungarian and Polish presidency priorities.

The event was organized by FoRS – Czech Forum for Development Co-operation and Glopolis in partnership with Zagranica Group, HAND, CAN Europe, ActionAid, Heinrich Boll Stiftung and CONCORD. Financial assistance was provided by the Czech – Polish Forum, the European Union and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic.

At the beginning of the workshop, the role of the presidency for development CSOs was introduced by Meagen Baldwin from CONCORD Europe, taking into account the new institutional structure as per the Lisbon Treaty. Further, Anne-Catherine Claude from Action Aid, Sebastien Blavier from CAN – Europe, Elena Gerebizza from CRBM and Kristina Prunerová from People In Need elaborated on the current situation and key topics for 2011 in the areas of development cooperation, human rights and climate change. Zuzana Sládková from FoRS, Ondřej Kopečný from Glopolis, Jiří Jeřábek from CDE and Michal Thim from AMO summarized the presidency experience from the perspective of the Czech national platform and CSOs, respectively, and advised how to develop and manage a successful advocacy strategy for the presidency based on their experience. Marie Zázvorková from FoRS provided consultancy to national platform representatives on how to manage their presidency project. The role of the European Commission Representation in the presidency countries and the potential cooperation with CSOs was discussed with Brigitte Luggin, the Communication Officer of the EC Representation in the Czech Republic. Finally, participants learnt about the hands-on experiences of the Czech presidency from government representatives, namely Hana Ševčíková, the former Director of the Development Cooperation & Humanitarian Aid Department, Isabelle Wahedová, the former national delegate at Permanent Representation of the Czech Republic to the EU, Andrea Chalupová, who is responsible for bilateral aid and statistics, Jan Tomášek, Martin Svárovský and Daniel Putík from the Strategy, Analysis & Project Management Office and last but not least, Helena Štohanzlová and Jan Látal from the Department for Human Rights and Transition Policy. Separate meetings were held with Antonín Berdych, the Director of the Cabinet of the Deputy Prime Minister and František Zouhar from the Czech Development Agency.

The discussion started during study visit in the Czech Republic and was continued in November 2010 during workshops held in Hungary and Poland. The Hungarian roundtable was organized on 3 November 2010 by HAND, Glopolis and FoRS. The Polish one was held on 18th November 2010 and was financed by the Czech Polish Forum, the European Commission and the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Warsaw. During the workshop in Warsaw the potential topics for presidency in 2011 were discussed in detail. Inka Pibilova from FoRS introduced the role of the presidency for development CSOs. Karine Sohet (APRODEV) presented a brief picture of the new EU Multiannual Financial Framework and the role of CSOs. Daniel Svoboda (Development Worldwide) presented development effectiveness angles. Gabriela Svárovská (independent expert) treated the subject of interlinking development and democracy in EU policies. Finally, Petr Patočka (Glopolis) and Jiří Jeřábek (CDE) held a panel on current issues in climate change.

This report summarizes the main recommendations and findings from all of the meetings and discussions. We would like to thank all of the above-mentioned experts who contributed to the report content with their extensive comments.

4

2. ROLE OF THE PRESIDENCY IN THE COUNCIL FOR DEVELOPMENT NGOs

The presidency in the Council is a six-month period of time when a European Union member state leads the agenda of European affairs. The country manages the daily EU policy debates and, to a limited extent, has the opportunity to shape EU agenda priorities. The presidency programme is elaborated and designed in the framework of the Trio Presidency, which means that three countries holding the presidency over a period of eighteen months decide on “large” priorities. However, in the end it depends on the member state as to what extent it wants to highlight particular issues, like development cooperation, in its presidential priorities (e.g. Spain and the United Kingdom were examples of countries which put a strong emphasis on development aid). Moreover, the EU follows a predictable agenda in development cooperation each year; therefore, the member state holding the presidency should acknowledge and engage in all current processes in the field.

The presidency is not only a demanding task for EU12 administration, which is not experienced in holding global debates on development cooperation, but it is also a challenge for national development CSOs platform and its members to become active actors in shaping their own presidency programme well in advance and to shift from a national policy and more towards a European policy perspective.

The role of the national development CSOs platform is to advocate in close cooperation with international platforms for a few chosen priorities at EU and national levels. It is an opportunity to strengthen the platform and the individual NGOs, foster relationships with decision makers, partners and other actors, highlight their own work and combine forces to achieve mutual goals. However, such efforts can be undermined by numerous factors. First of all, the EU decision-making process notably depends on the will of member states and EU institutions. Besides that, there are other objective factors, e.g. the economic crisis, which the EU was bound to react to. For instance, the Swedish Presidency, despite proposing an ambitious development cooperation agenda, withdrew from it in the end due to other priorities.

From the individual NGO perspective engaging in the presidency can help in acquiring new contacts among decision makers (government, EU institutions, many experts coming to the presidency country) and new partners, networks and alliances from the EU / South (ActionAid, Oxfam, CAN, thematic networks like CONCORD, Eurodad, Eurostep, Tax Justice Network, etc). Also it can contribute to learning new ways of working, for example, learning how other NGOs and government administrations work, new knowledge on substance and EU perspective by seeing their own work from a broader perspective, issues) and new knowledge on the decision-making process (key for advocacy and policy work). All those factors can lead to new visibility (in government and EU institutions, networks etc.) and to fundraising. To sum up there is little to lose and much to gain for NGOs. However, the expectations estimating the impact should be adequate. In the end the presidency means the opportunity both to enhance understanding of and involvement in politics on the EU/global level and to gain extra resources for capacity building and awareness raising and build partnerships that will last beyond presidency.

5

3. THE IMPACT OF THE LISBON TREATY ON THE PRESIDENCY AND DEVELOPMENT

After the Lisbon Treaty came into force, development agenda faces notably two dilemmas, making development actors uncertain about the future “development institutional set-up”.

First, it is unclear to what extent development issues will be taken over by the newly established European External Action Service (EEAS) headed by Catherine Ashton and articulated in its EU foreign affairs dossier. According to the agreement on EEAS1 from 21 June 2010 and the decision of the Council on 23 July 2010 (2010/427/EU) the management of the EU external cooperation programmes – i.e. development and European Neighbourhood Policy – will stay in the hands of the European Commission. However, it is still not certain to what extent the High Representative will be engaged in programming. For example, issues related to the European Development Fund, the Development Co-operation Instrument and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights must be agreed on jointly by the High Representative and the Development Commissioner, demanding strong input at both levels2.

Second, it is feared that development cooperation will be politicized if the EEAS tries to monopolize the programming phase in the near future (when all senior staff will be employed). However, the final institutional balance can be acknowledged as soon as the EEAS starts to be fully operating. At the moment, good relationships with Ashton´s cabinet need to be established so that the perspective of NGOs can be reflected in the decision-making. In any case, Catherine Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Andris Piebalgs, the European Commissioner for Development, must work as a team. According to the above-mentioned political deal, High Representative deputies will include not only the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the country holding the presidency, but also the Development and the Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Commissionaires. On the other, hand Catherine Ashton is leading the College of Commissionaires, which means that Andris Piebalgs is only one of twenty-seven officials to contact her. The future will show if the High Representative and the European Commission on development will reach a consensus. The question is, whether heads of the EU’s delegations abroad, who report both to the EEAS management and the Commission, might encounter “conflicts of priorities”.

Taking into account the diminishing role of the presidency following the introduction of the Treaty of Lisbon, it is not clear to what extent the country holding the presidency can influence the EU development cooperation agenda. On the one hand, the development cooperation is currently discussed in the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) headed by Catherine Ashton3, which seemingly weakens the position of the country holding the presidency as it is Mrs. Ashton who sets the agenda. Also, there is a possibility for the High Representative to reject some of the presidency priorities because the Presidency Trio Programme must be approved by Catherine Ashton. For instance, uncertainty arose regarding whether or not the financial transaction tax discussed during the Belgian presidency would be approved by Mrs. Ashton. Nevertheless, the Presidency Trio Programme is broad and general and, therefore, a detailed half-year presidency agenda prepared by each presidency state is still of utmost importance. On the other hand, the country holding the presidency organizes informal meetings of ministers and it leads the Council’s working groups, such as the Working Party on Development Cooperation CODEV4, which drafts Council conclusions.

To sum up, the country holding the presidency will still have room to manoeuvre in influencing EU development agenda. This will be particularly valid in 2011 as the EEAS will still be setting its ground rules. Also, it is important to bear in mind that the EU institutional reform will be fully implemented during the term of Hungarian Presidency in the first half of 2011 and the consequences can be learnt only thereafter. Consequently, it will be a challenge for the Hungarian and Polish Presidencies to act in the new realities of EU decision-making process.

1 A political agreement on the establishment of the EEAS was reached on Monday 21 June 2010 between the three rapporteurs of the EP (Elmar Brok, Guy Verhofstadt and Roberto Gualtieri), High Representative Catherine Ashton and Commissioner Maroš Šefèoviè, as well as Miguel Ángel Moratinos (Spanish EU presidency).

2 See Elmar Brok Report “Report on the proposal for a Council decision establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service, adopted by the European Parliament on 6 July 2010, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/reports.do?language=EN. The Council approved its creation on Monday 23 July 2010.

3 It is a consequence of the division of GAERC into two separate Councils – the General Affairs Council (GAC), guided by the presidency, and the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

4 The working party, consisting of MS experts and officials, is responsible for policy issues in the area of development. The group usually meets once a week but at times it can meet more often, particularly ahead of the meetings of the Council of Ministers. Decisions on matters prepared in CODEV are adopted by development Ministers within the framework of the Foreign Affairs Council.

6

4. ADVOCACY STRATEGY FOR THE EU PRESIDENCY

The main activities of the national platform and NGOs during the period of their country’s presidency should notably be advocacy at the EU level. On the other hand, the presidency is a moment that allows the national platform to promote the development cooperation among its civil society, which is especially crucial for the EU-12. Therefore, some development cooperation and awareness-raising events should be organized at the national level together with the EU advocacy activities. The advocacy strategy should follow the following flowchart, whereby each step is further elaborated below.

Chart 1: Advocacy Strategy for the EU Presidency

Advocacy Strategy for the EU Presidency

Setting-up cooperation with international platform/s

• Engage in the relevant CONCORD working groups and the Policy Forum Steering Group.• Contribute to CONCORD working groups by presenting the national or the EU-12 position.• Share the intelligence with international platform/s before and during the presidency.

Mapping the current debates in development agenda

• Examine the key issues in development cooperation on EU level.• Include some of the key themes for 2011, for example, Structured Dialogue, Policy Coherence

for Development, Millennium Development Goals, and revision of European Consensus on Development, Afghanistan and Horn of Africa.

• Take into account the priorities of the preceding presidency. Mapping of current institutional set-up for development issues

• European Commission (EC): in particular DG Devco (former DG Development and EuropeAid).• European Parliament (EP): in particular the Development Aid (DEVE), Trade (INTA), Agriculture

(AGRI) and Budget (BUDGET) Committees.• Council: the formal/informal Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) and CODEV (Working Party on

Development Cooperation) meetings.• Organize a study visit to Belgium or other presidency country.

Consultations of national platform and national administration on the priorities of the presidency

• Establish a network of contacts with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Permanent Representation in the EU, and other ministries indirectly involved in development policy, such as the Ministry of Finances, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of the Environment.

• Begin consultation on the national priorities of the presidency at the latest one year before the presidency.

7

Consultations of NGOs on their presidency priorities

• Create Presidency policy group within the national platform, which will be responsible for consultations with national development NGOs.

• Submit Presidency project to EuropeAid.

Preparation of the Presidency agenda / priorities

• Since the Presidency lasts only six months, choose a small number of priorities, ideally one or two.

• Link the priorities to the upcoming EU agenda and fit it well into the context of the priorities of the countries in the Presidency Trio.

• Ensure that the priorities reflect the added value of the national platform /NGOs/CSOs.• Create a rather low-profile agenda and focus on its effective implementation

Planning of the Presidency activities

• Presidency is about advocacy, not about a big number of workshops or conferences. • Therefore keep at least 30% of the time free for unexpected events.• Build a strong coalition/cooperation of NGOs well ahead of the presidency and mutually agree

on the division of work in advance.

Use diverse communication tools during the Presidency:

• Write a manifesto – a document summarising briefly the presidency priorities of the national platform;

• Send official (“lobby”) letters to the national administration; • Prepare the position papers and case studies, which should be the main source of information

for a wide range of stakeholders; • Participate (the national platform) in official presidency events: CODEV meetings and high-

level meetings of the presidency (for instance, with the Foreign Affairs/ Development Minister, Secretary of State, etc.);

• Organize roundtables and conferences in order to bring together multiple stakeholders to discuss a certain issue.


8

4.1 Setting-up Cooperation with International PlatformsIn order to advocate at the EU level, specific expertise on current processes in the area of development needs to

be obtained. Therefore, it is worthwhile to initiate or intensify collaboration with Brussels-based platforms, networks or NGOs such as CONCORD or Action Aid.

As an international platform linking EU national platforms, CONCORD5 has numerous working groups specializing in different aspects of development cooperation, such as Policy Coherence Development, CSO effectiveness, food security, climate issues, etc.6 It is highly recommended for each national platform to engage in working groups of their interest to obtain relevant expertise. Furthermore, the national platform can contribute to working groups by presenting the national or the EU-12 position, for instance in food security (as in 2011, when the review of Common Agriculture Policy will be held). There is a lack of knowledge of the EU-12 positions in development cooperation not only among decision makers, but also among international platforms. CONCORD can help strengthen the position by combining efforts of experts from the whole of Europe and delivering these to the decision makers.

More importantly, the national platform should engage in the CONCORD Policy Forum and its steering group, which is formed by representatives of national platforms coming from the Presidency Trio and other experts. The Group is the highest-level body of CONCORD responsible for policy formulation. It is highly advisable to appoint a Policy Officer to be engaged in the Policy Forum at least one year ahead of the presidency and to include him/her in the steering group six months before the presidency.

The collaboration between CONCORD and the national platform should be based on the sharing of information before and during the presidency. This includes the information on national presidency priorities, national platform priorities, drafts of Council conclusions, state of play of the debates within the Council on a particular topic and general timetable of the presidency – the information on planned presidency events and meetings (i.e. CODEV meeting, agenda and timetable of the Foreign Affairs Council, informal meetings of development ministers).

If both sides decide to cooperate, a memorandum of understanding between the platform and CONCORD, which clarifies the roles, allocation of tasks and the expected outcomes, should be drafted.

If a national platform would like to focus on specific themes during presidency, it can also cooperate with other international platforms or NGOs. For example, Action Aid (NGOs) can help in the areas of Official Development Assistance (ODA), aid effectiveness, hunger, climate, trade and gender.7 Action Aid has immense advocacy experience in these areas on the EU level and it has already worked with several national platforms during presidency (i.e. joint programmes with Glopolis in the Czech Republic, Swedish Action Aid and Spanish NGO). Action Aid will also try to work on a joint programme with Hungarian and Polish NGOs and advocate for it jointly in Brussels. Moreover, it offers study visits for national platforms’ NGOs (partners of the GREAT Project) to its headquarters in Brussels as an induction in their presidency.

According to the Czech experience, the cooperation with international platforms was extremely beneficial as it enabled the Czech platform and NGOs to advocate at the EU level. At the same time, entering into such a partnership also included the responsibility to keep all platforms informed on key developments in the national and EU policy the Czech platform and NGOs were involved in. The added value of such cooperation is that FoRS and other NGOs involved in EU policy making during the presidency obtained the intelligence on European policy work structure and processes, which enabled FoRS to be engaged at EU level after the presidency to pursue mutual, long-term goals.

Further, according to the Czech experience, development of relationships with local allies helps in pursuing mutual goals. For example, FoRS, the development NGO platform, joined forces with human rights platform DEMAS to address democratic governance and the environmental NGOs associated within the Green circle to form a joint position on climate change.

5 See www.concordeurope.org6 See http://www.concordeurope.org/Public/Page.php?ID=30 for details on CONCORD working groups. Contact your national platform director to obtain more

information how to engage with the working group of your preference.7 See http://www.actionaid.org/


9

4.2 Mapping the Current Debates in Development AgendaBefore drafting the presidency programme, the key issues in development cooperation on the EU level should

be carefully analysed during a larger temporal framework. For instance, the main processes8 on the EU level in 2011 will include: Structured Dialogue, Policy Coherence for Development, Millennium Development Goals, Revision of European Consensus on Development, Afghanistan and Horn of Africa. The beginning of negotiations on new Multiannual Financial Perspective and a review of Common Agriculture Policy will also play a crucial role for EU development cooperation.

The national platform priorities should inscribe themselves in main EU policy developments as well as its country presidency priorities. Even though Polish and Hungarian Presidencies will not have an ambitious development agenda, the national platforms try to contribute with their activities to EU policy (Annex 7). One should bear in mind that it is highly unlikely that any national platform or NGO would be able to fulfil its priorities during a six-month period of its national presidency. To combine the efforts and to ensure follow-up, it is highly advisable to coordinate the priorities among the Presidency Trio. As derived from the joint workshop in Prague on 15-17 June 2010, the common standpoint of Polish and Hungarian national platforms can be built around the contribution of Eastern Partnership to development and the Policy Coherence Development. The Hungarian and the Polish platform will definitely connect its programmes around the issue especially addressing civil society’s role in neighbourhood policy setting.

8 Detailed description of the mentioned issues is included in Annex 1 and 2


10

4.3 Mapping of Current Institutional Set-up for Development Issues In order to plan advocacy activities, diverse interventions at the EU and national levels should be identified.

Different EU institutions often do not agree on certain proposals; therefore, such gaps should be explored and adequate interventions should be developed. At the moment, the most relevant EU institutions9 in development are:

European Commission (EC) – in particular DG Devco headed by Commissioner Andris Piebalgs. The EC is responsible for background work, making proposals and channelling the discussion. For instance, it launches the Spring Package every year, which is the EC annual communication package assessing European governments’ progress in implementing their financing for development pledges. The 2009 Spring Package is an action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which offers a scope for discussion of issues like trade and migration, the EU’s Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) agenda.

CONCORD: As the European platform, CONCORD has the legitimacy to maintain dialogue with the EC on behalf of the national development cooperation platforms. However, presidency platforms are included in the consultations as agreed.

European Parliament (EP): Together with the Council, it has legislative power, however, without legislative initiative. Its power has increased after the introduction of the Treaty of Lisbon as it has received the right of co-decision (the EP has equal right to vote on proposals as the Council) in approximately forty new areas in co-decision procedure. Generally, Members of European Parliament (MEPs) listen to civil society the most as they form their electorate. The Committee on Development should primarily be contacted by national development platforms and NGOs, however, the MEPs working in this committee already have a similar perspective on development aid to NGOs. Trade, Agriculture and Budget Committees have significant power, since they indirectly influence development cooperation and usually are very resistant to apply NGO postulates in development cooperation. Therefore, the national platforms and NGOs should search for the contacts of their national MEPs in all of the above mentioned Committees, establish a long-term cooperation and supply them with relevant field expertise. Once again, it is recommended to coordinate such activities with CONCORD, building on its experience and utilizing its expertise in diverse areas, such as Policy Coherence for Development or EU Budget.

Council (formerly Council of the EU) – is the other legislative body beside the EP representing the governments of EU Member States.

The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) is a council where Foreign Ministers of EU Member States meet on a monthly basis. The development policy is on the agenda only once during each presidency. Based on the results of the Council, working groups or parties such as CODEV (Working Party on Development Cooperation), it launches the Council Conclusions. This is an indicative document for further EU policy developments. Because national interests drive the work of the Council, it is important to get relevant information on the level of national administration holding the presidency. Platforms should strive to influence the national representatives both on the national level, i.e. relevant representatives of the ministries, and the officials at the permanent representation of the country holding the presidency in the EU.

To illustrate the dynamics among EU institutions, the Spring Package on development cooperation can be mentioned. It is prepared every year in April by the European Commission and the content is prepared one year in advance. Against the backdrop of this document, the FAC prepares the Council Conclusions twice a year in May and November. However, the Spring Package also bases its content on the work of CODEV (which usually drafts Council Conclusions) and informal meetings of development ministers (informal FAC). On the level of working groups (e.g. CODEV), a presidency country representative chairs the meetings and plays an important role, thus creating an opportunity for advocacy. The representatives of other governments, participating in such meetings, are also important for advocacy actions.

A good practice in acquiring knowledge of the EU decision-making process in development cooperation is a study visit to Belgium or a presidency country. A study visit on the Irish Presidency has helped the Czech national platform, FoRS, to acquire better understanding of EU Policy challenges seven months ahead of the Czech presidency.9 More information on EU institutions is available at: http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/index_en.htm


11

4.4 Consultations of National Platform and National Administration on the Presidency Priorities

Such consultations should focus on exchanging points of view on presidency priorities, establishing the network between the administration and CSOs as well as building mutual trust. The presidency platform has to take into account that the priorities of the Presidency Trio are prepared well in advance and it is worthwhile to consult or, as the case may be, influence the Presidency Trio Programme. This is still effective for the Polish national platform until at least the end of 201010.

It should be underscored that there should be a “ceasefire” between CSOs and the government, notwithstanding their differences, during the presidency because they work together towards building the good reputation of their country and have mutual goals.

The institutions directly responsible for development aid, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Permanent Representation in the EU, are the key contacts for the national platform and CSOs involved in the EU advocacy. However, other ministries, whose dossiers indirectly concern development aid, are also of crucial importance; the Ministry of Finances, the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment should also be considered for advocacy actions since they are often quite sceptical about linking their work to development cooperation.

Generally, it is important to remember that national platforms should stay in touch not only with the supporting officials but also with the opponents. Further, it is advised to be less political and more technical with such actors, since they value expertise. Moreover, working with desk officers and staff on the ground level can often bring concrete changes in the drafted policy. Mutual trust, once established, can lead to long-term, beneficial cooperation.

Therefore, it is also advisable to start building such relationships well in advance.The consultation on the national presidency priorities should commence at a very early stage – at the

latest one year before the presidency. The timing is very important, as the agenda will be closed six months before the presidency. For instance, the Czech presidency programme was presented in informal GAERC (General Affairs and External Relations Council, prior to FAC) three months before its beginning. During the presidency, national administration is occupied with the implementation of the agenda, so there is no possibility for any further discussion on the presidency priorities or non-priority issues.

To illustrate the consultation process, Czech CSOs working in the field of democracy promotion established very good relations with the Human Rights and Transition Policy Department, which lead to a common agenda with the aim to promote the EU Consensus on Democracy. European Partnership for Democracy, a Brussels-based NGO working closely with the Czech national platform, became a supporting team to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and helped to reach the consensus among the different actors. Notably, all documents were commented on by representatives of civil society, thus enabling NGOs to make a real impact on EU policy.

10 Up to 16 August 2010, the Poland-Denmark-Cyprus Presidency Trio Meetings were held twice. At the moment, no definite date of the launch of the Presidency Trio Programme launch is set. Available at http://www.msz.gov.pl/index.php?document=36517, 16 August 2010.


12

4.5 Consultations of CSOs on their presidency Priorities

Because it is usually a lengthy process to reach the consensus on the common presidency priorities between differently profiled CSOs, such consultations should start at latest one year before the presidency. The national platform should be a leader and create a working group in order to lead preparations of the presidency programme for CSOs and other non-state actors. Moreover, the national platform responsible for implementing the presidency project grant11 should explain at a very early stage to all its members the role and the opportunities of the presidency and the rules of the presidency project and involve them in its preparation to secure their ownership.

In case of the Czech platform, presidency steering group was formed by three people who were responsible for drafting the presidency project. The group was created seven months before the presidency. However, the national platform started discussions on presidency priorities already one and a half year ahead of the presidency. This group engaged policy officers from different CSOs to gather broad field expertise (e.g. on climate change). In the end, it can be said that no consensus can be reached among all parties. In the Czech case, Glopolis, a Czech think-tank, and FoRS, the national platform, focused on different aspects of development cooperation, although they coordinated such efforts in joint actions and positions. Therefore, different priorities can be the focused on and separate programmes can be launched; however, commonalities and synergies should be sought at the same time. Moreover, the parties should be aware that too many priorities might diminish the impact on the policy makers and the media.

4.6 Preparation of the Presidency Agenda The national platform should bear in mind that development cooperation is covered by diverse EU policies,

and, with respect to the fact that presidency only lasts six months, the platform cannot engage in all debates. Therefore, a small number of priorities should be chosen, ideally one or two. For instance, the main priority of the French Presidency was financial transaction tax, for the Irish Presidency it was human security, and for the Swedish Presidency it was Policy Coherence in Development. The priorities should not be very ambitious; instead it is advisable to have a low-profile agenda and focus on its effective implementation. Taking into account that both presidencies in 2011 will be held by EU-12, it will be of additional benefit to reflect their perspectives in forming and pursuing the presidential priorities. In order to select the right priorities, the following aspects should be taken into account.

First, chosen priorities should be relevant for the state actors – they should be directly related to the upcoming EU agenda and fit well into the context of the priorities of the countries in the Presidency Trio (see Annex 1 and 2 concerning the 2011 developments), while using the technical terminology of the state actors.

Second, the priorities should reflect the added value of the national platform. For instance, the Slovenian national platform focused on development education, which was still perceived as an overlapping area in the country. In the end, the presidency project lead to the formulation of a national strategy in this area, and thus strengthened the cooperation with the administration.

Third, the national platform should not be afraid to raise new topics in the EU debate. First of all, the analysis should be made to ascertain whether it is manageable to initiate new issues, whether a consensus can be reached among member states and what is the attitude of the national administration towards the issue. The French platform is a good example because it pushed through the financial transaction tax, which was not on the agenda. Generally, the humanitarian issues are easier to penetrate for small countries in COHAFA than development cooperation in CODEV, which is dominated by big donors.

It may be the case that national and international platforms have different priorities and do not agree on certain areas. Therefore, decisions should be adopted to discern the areas, in which the national platform should pursue its goals anyway, and areas that will require joint focus of the national platform and state institutions. The solution can be the choosing of two priorities: one concerning the international level of development policy, and the

11 During each Presidency, the national development platforms have an opportunity to apply to EuropeAid for a direct grant, covering its Presidency priorities, explained in subchapter 4.8 of this report


13

second priority focusing on national problems. The Czech platforms focused on the CSO development effectiveness, which was the priority selected by its members; however, it has reflected this broad area from the perspective of the governmental priorities, i.e. democratic governance or sustainable energy resources.

4.7 Planning of the Presidency ActivitiesSeveral aspects have to be taken into account by the national platform while planning the presidency

activities. First of all, presidency is about advocacy, not a large number of workshops or conferences. Therefore, at least 30% of the time should be kept free. Planning a full programme does not allow the platform to react to unexpected issues that usually occur during the presidency.

A strong coalition of CSOs has to be built well ahead of the presidency and the division of labour should be mutually agreed on in advance. This can be achieved through an inclusive consultation process lead by the national platform in advance (see point 5). It is crucial that every party is aware of the specifics of the presidency and is engaged in the process.

Useful communication tools, which can be built into the presidency activity plan, include the following:

Writing a manifesto12, i.e. a document briefly summarising the presidency priorities of the national platform. The manifesto is used notably to raise awareness and for promotion purposes; at the same time it also helps the platform to remain focused. It is presented at the beginning of the presidency to all actors on the national and EU level. While preparing the manifesto, the national platform can rely on the CONCORD expertise. Close cooperation with the European platform will also ensure that there is coherence between the manifesto and other work of the CSOs on the EU level.

If there is a need to react to the policy proposals during the presidency, it is recommended to send official (“lobby”) letters to the national administration. For instance, the Czech national platform has issued nine joint letters to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Environment on topics, such as the impact of financial crisis on development countries or international commitments regarding the quantity of aid. Such letters were usually drafted in cooperation with CONCORD.

The position papers and case studies should be the main source of information for a wide range of stakeholders. It is recommended to launch such policy papers in cooperation with CONCORD, CAN or others Brussels-based CSOs, to enhance advocacy activities.

In any case, the participation of the national platform in ministerial meetings and working groups is of utmost importance. During the presidency, the national platform is entitled to participate in such meetings; however, such participation needs to be communicated and coordinated well in advance with national administration. If the national platform fails to do so, there is a risk that the national Ministry may reject such a request. Notwithstanding, the influence of CONCORD can help in such a case. There are several possibilities to organize such meetings:

a) CODEV meetings – according to a “tradition” initiated during the Austrian presidency, CONCORD is invited by the presidency together with the national platform to a meeting with the Council development working party (CODEV). The meeting offers an opportunity to exchange points of view on Council Conclusions. The CONCORD secretariat can help the national platform find the key experts from CONCORD who will participate in the meeting and report afterwards. For example, the Czech presidency had two CODEV meetings concerning impact of the financial crisis on developing countries/tax havens and financial issues of CONCORD.

b) High-level meetings with the presidency (for instance, during the Informal Meeting of the Development Ministers). National platforms are encouraged to attempt to arrange these meetings.12 See an example of Glopolis and Action Aid manifesto: “The world in crisis: securing economies and resources for the poor countries. Manifesto for the Czech

presidency in the EU, January 2009”, available at http://www.greatproject.eu/public/pages/upload/theworldincrisis_en.pdfs


14

Roundtables and conferences should be organized with the objective to bring together multiple stakeholders to discuss a certain issue. The conferences should ideally be held under the patronage of the Minister of Foreign Affairs or other high-level officials, with international speakers and participants. Cooperation with the Representation of the European Commission can be settled to facilitate the EC officials’ participation. Such events help promote the platform activities across the world and are a good occasion for networking.

Organisation of press conferences and press releases, which helps to keep media and the general public informed. However, it is recommended to choose the important dates, such as the summits of the United Nations, World Human Rights Day, etc. to attract journalists who write about development cooperation.

4.8 Managing the Presidency Project

During each presidency of the EU, national platforms in development cooperation have an opportunity to apply for the project “Non-State Actors and Local Authorities in Development”13 within the EuropeAid budget line. Such presidency projects should aim at both raising the public awareness of development issues in their respective member states and strengthening the cooperation among national development NGOs and between the government and its national NGOs, as well as between the European Union and European NGOs in general14. There is a certain flexibility in selecting the project theme by national platforms because it depends mostly on current EU policy developments.

The EuropeAid grant scheme promotes big projects undertaken in partnerships. For instance, the Czech presidency project was submitted in partnership with six other Czech organizations15 and the total budget was approximately 267.000 EUR. The Belgian and Hungarian national platforms received about 250.000 EUR each in 2010. The EC financing is usually at the level of 75-90% of total project costs, which means that additional resources need to be found. FoRS obtained the additional funding from the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the framework of trilateral cooperation.16

The presidency project of FoRS focused on Civil Society Organisations Development Effectiveness. Czech CSOs thus contributed to the global process of “Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness”17 by reflecting together with their partners, their activities and factors of impact on the life of poor people in developing countries.

CSO Development Effectiveness was also an issue cutting across other priority areas of FoRS during the Czech presidency, which were aligned to the priorities of the Czech government: democratic governance, development education and awareness raising, agriculture and food security, sustainable technologies, migration/remittances and inclusive development. Gender also had a special place considering its close connection with development effectiveness. In total, three seminars and three conferences were held, fifteen case studies and policy papers were launched and advocacy actions were undertaken. The CSO Development conference held 23 – 24 June, 2009 was the closing event of the presidency project. Over 170 representatives of CSOs, donors and governments from nearly 50 countries took part in multi-stakeholder debates and concluded with a conference proclamation. They also received the publication “CSO Development Effectiveness – Searching New Ways” that includes all case studies, agreed development effectiveness principles and description of the role of CSOs.

Based on the experience of FoRS18, several recommendations can be formulated for other national platforms preparing for their presidency.

First, the consultation process should start among CSOs and other stakeholders at the latest one year before the presidency. A working group responsible for the presidency project should be created and this team should establish good communication channels with local stakeholders and the EuropeAid team to obtain relevant information about the application process. The European Commission officials also play a crucial role in

13 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/finance/dci/non_state_actors_en.htm, 16 August 2010.14 Action Fiche 1, available at http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/documents/aap/2010/af_aap_2010_dci-nsa.pdf, p. 34-36, 16 August2010.15 Among the other partners were: ADRA, DWW , EDUCON , GLOPOLIS, Multicultural Centre Prague, People in Need16 See http://www.mzv.cz/preview/774-1-MZV/cz/zahranicni_vztahy/rozvojova_spoluprace/dvoustranna_zrs_cr/trojstranna_spoluprace/index.html, 16 Auust

2010. Moreover it should be remembered that the negotiation process on the Presidency project proposal and budget lasts long and the agreement is signed later. Therefore, sufficient level of prefinancing has to be ensured by the applicants.

17 See www.cso-effectiveness.org, 16 August 201018 See the report of activities (http://www.fors.cz) and the external evaluation (http://www.fors.cz/assets/files/CSOEff/PPEvalRep.pdf)


15

19 FoRS had to prepare 6 drafts before the final one was approved by EuropeAid. Therefore it is advisable to start the negotiation process early enough to avoid any delays. FoRS also had some difficulties in interpreting parts of the standard contract and clarifications from EuropeAid were sometimes ambiguous. The CONCORD reader (www.concordeurope.org), the punto.sud EuropeAid Helpdesk (http://www.puntosud.org/helpdesk-europeaid/doku.php) and also the new Civil Society Helpdesk of EuropeAid (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/aidco/index.php/Main_Page) are a good source of further information and advice.

20 EC Communication: International climate policy post-Copenhagen: Acting now to reinvigorate global action on climate change {SEC(2010) 261}, 9 March 201021 For instance, CAN Europe, http://www.climnet.org/.


explaining conditions of the grant, in negotiating the project content and budget as well as in accepting the project amelioration.19 It is worthwhile to have all uncertainties clarified regularly by the EuropeAid team, especially when it comes to modification of the budget, procurement rules, non-eligible costs, supporting documents and visibility requirements. A good practice is to archive all electronic and other communication with EuropeAid as contact persons may change during the implementation. Further, it is recommended to invite EuropeAid representatives to main project events and inform them on the project progress.

Second, the presidency project, its objectives, activities and budget should be designed as realistically as possible. In particular, the advocacy impact of planned activities should not be exaggerated. Further, the project needs to be fully integrated into the activities of the platform and the implementing partners and especially close cooperation with the platform’s policy officer needs to be ensured. With respect to the budget, it is recommended to allocate enough funds for high-quality translations, external evaluation and reasonable contingency reserve.

Third, if the national platform does not already have enough human resources and experience in the implementation of large-scale international projects, it is worthwhile to recruit and induct an appropriate number of staff well in advance. Ideally, the project coordinator should participate in the submission of the presidency project.

Further key roles include an experienced finance manager, a media/information officer and a policy/advocacy officer.

Fourth, since the consortium usually implements the presidency project, clear partnership rules must be implemented. It is advisable to sign an appropriate partnership agreement before the beginning of the project; each implementing partner should include annexes, such as the project proposal, overall budget, general conditions, procurement rules, reporting templates, and division of tasks and responsibilities of all the main actors.

It is recommended that the agreement also reflect on a mechanism to be used in case of unexpected events. At the beginning, an informative meeting for the partners clarifying EC financial and contractual requirements should be organized. Moreover, in order to avoid any delays, the partners should show certain flexibility in their activities to not make the Project Board responsible for every decision. During the implementation, all the partners should be equally informed about all developments.

Last but not least, appropriate monitoring mechanisms need to be considered already at the inception stage and should be used during the project. Further, during the implementation, the platform’s website focusing on the presidency should provide all necessary information and should be regularly updated.

Counteracting climate change is a high priority of the EU agenda, even though the political developments in this area are very slow. The issue is closely related to development cooperation since the negative effects of climate change are mostly impacting the developing countries.

With respect to the ways in which the national platform and CSOs should engage in these debates, it is recommended to follow the EU agenda and keep a low profile because numerous initiatives are already in place. Currently the issues at stake are the implementation of EU fast start funding to combat the negative effects of the climate in developing countries (see Annex 4). In addition, the 30% reduction of CO2 emissions after 2020 is being discussed in the EU as well as the possibility of reaching a legally binding agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)20. At the end of 2011, the work on adoption of a legally-binding agreement in South Africa will be continued in addition to other agreements.

In the case of the Czech Presidency, the climate change priorities have been already worked out by the Presidency Trio and led by Sweden. The Czech environmental NGOs contributed with their analysis to the Czech presidency. In particular, the coalition of NGOs interested in climate change issues was established; it led to several common activities, such as sending lobby letters.

Taking into account the fact that both the Polish and the Hungarian government are quite resistant to the climate change agenda, it is difficult for national platforms to push for any developments in this area. However, an important task would be to strengthen links between national and international environmental NGOs and to cooperate with Brussels-based NGOs specialising in climate change21 through the exchange of information on political developments on both the EU and national level during presidency.

16

5. SELECTED TOPICS RELEVANT FOR 2011 PRESIDENCIES

5.1. The EU Multiannual Financial Framework and the Role of NGOs

In 2011, the process of negotiations on the EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) will commence. It will indicate the maximum amount and the composition of annual EU expenditure after 2013.22 Such financial framework will be established for at least 5 years. In consequence, the development expenditures as well as the development instruments will be revised.

The decision-making process regarding the EU budget negotiations has changed following the introduction of the Treaty of Lisbon. Before the treaty came into force, the so-called financial perspective was decided on the basis of inter-institutional agreements. Currently, the Multiannual Financial Framework should be laid down by the regulation adopted unanimously by the Council after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, by absolute majority of its members. Such a solution structures the process of negotiations.

It is important to acknowledge the timeframe of negotiations in this new procedure (Chart 2).

Chart 2: Timeframe of EU Multiannual Financial Framework

• 2008-2010: Broad budget review, public debate• October 2010: EC Communication on outcome of budget review, followed by Council conclusions

(still awaited)• Before end 2010: on-line consultation on external action• April 2011: EP resolution on political priorities for MFF• Before 1 July 2011: EC to adopt its legislative proposal on the future MFF • By end 2012: Agreement by the European Council on the MFF and subsequent assent by the

European Parliament.• By end 2013: Adoption of regulations for delivery instruments• January 2014: Entry into force of the MFF for a period yet to be decided. EC has suggested 5+5 years

with a mid-term review.

The first stage of negotiations will start when the European Commission launches a legislative proposal of the budget, which is expected to happen before 1 July, 2011. Once the EC proposal comes out, the member states and the European Parliament will have to take positions on the proposal content. This is a key moment for advocacy on the budget principles. However, a debate on the budgetary weight of political priorities has already started (e.g. CAP review). It is expected that the process of positioning in budget negotiations will last until the beginning of 2012. Therefore, the Polish presidency will probably not be obliged to moderate the formal part of negotiations. After the agreement on general priorities is reached, negotiations on concrete financial instruments will start.

The advocacy activities on the EU budget should have a two-track approach. They should be delivered both on the EU level, notably versus the European Commission and the European Parliament as well as on a national level. It should be remembered that the EP has powerful means of pressure as it can block final decision on the budget. In this institution, a special committee on budget negotiation will start working. At the same time, MEPs have many different interests, so sometimes it might be difficult to find consensus among them. As the European Commission will draft all legislative proposals (both on Multiannual Financial Framework and on instruments), it is important to take part in consultations and establish a dialogue with this institution. Nevertheless, the final decision on the EU budget is made by the member states in the Council, which is usually led by European Affairs, Finance or Prime Ministers. Those resorts should be contacted in order to communicate the position on development priorities in EU budget. One should note that the influence of development ministers will be low in the debate on budget principles. Development resorts will have increased importance during negotiations on the financial instruments later on.

22 See Art.312 of Treaty of Lisbon: “The financial framework shall determine the amounts of the annual ceilings on commitment appropriations by category of expenditure and of the annual ceiling on payment appropriations. The categories of expenditure, limited in number, shall correspond to the Union’s major sectors of activity.”

17

Content of negotiations In order to be involved in the debate on the Multiannual Financial Framework, one should understand the

content of the issues to be negotiated. The current scope of budget share (2007-2013) is as described in chart no. 3.

Chart 3: EU budget share 2007–2013

It is expected that the political priorities for MFF will remain in line with the EU 2020 strategy and focus on competitiveness, growth and innovation. The priorities will thus include sustainable growth and jobs, climate and energy, the CAP reform and a global Europe. The last priority is an important one from the development CSOs point of view.

The negotiations of the next Multiannual Financial Framework include three levels of decision, which create different dilemmas for CSOs.

First, the ceiling on the EU’s own resources should be decided. Currently there is a ceiling of 1.24% of GNI, but in reality it equals 1.07%. Because of the economic crisis, there are signals from member states indicating they want to significantly lower the percentage of GNI. This means a lower EU budget and in consequence less EU funding for development. One should also note that there is a general trend to decrease development budgets at the member states level which further impacts NGO funding (e.g. in Netherlands, Sweden).

Second, the EU political priorities and distribution of resources among different budget headings will be decided. For instance, financial resources for external action versus development are being debated. There is a risk that spending on development will diminish not only because of the economic crisis, but also due to the changing EU paradigm in external relations. It is important to note that there is a trend to invest more resources in security issues, anti-terrorism, migration control. In some cases even a militarisation of aid can be witnessed (i.e. Afghanistan). Therefore, an increase of funds for security issues can be expected. This means more resources for emergency aid, crisis management, security/Common Foreign and Security Policy and functioning of the European External Action Service. One may also notice a shift of the aid paradigm from Millennium Development Goals to aid as a catalyst for growth. The results-oriented approach and focus on short-term visible results is being promoted among the EU Member States rather than the process of societal change. In the end, this leads to loosening the long-term, strategic approach to development aid.

Third, the redistribution of resources for concrete financial instruments and their modalities will be negotiated. The shape of geographic and thematic instruments will certainly be reviewed. Several questions arise in this respect, for instance the availability of additional funding for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, the increasing role for European Investment Bank in developing countries and the integration of European Development Fund into EU budget.

At this stage of negotiations on concrete modalities, the role of CSOs should be safeguarded. The CONCORD study23 remarks that officials and politicians in European institutions continue to perceive development NGOs as


23 Facts and Figures. What the official 2008 figures continue to tell us about EC aid and NGOs, CONCORD 2010, www.dochas.ie/Shared/Files/4/Facts_and_Figures_2010.pdf

Sources: Karine Sohet presentation, APRODEV, 18.11.2010, Warsaw

18


administering a great quantity of EC funds. However, the official figures from the European Commission indicate that in 2008, from a € 7.9 billion budget for External Aid, about € 1.08 billion (13.7%) was granted to CSOs, out of which € 754 million (9.5%) were granted to NGOs. The CONCORD study also shows a tendency to focus more on state aid for social sectors and service delivery through budgetary support with little participation of CSOs. In 2008, from both the EC external budget (€7.9 billion) and the EDF (€4.8 billion), 30 % (€3.8 billion) of commitments were allocated to budgetary support. The importance of budgetary support has significantly increased over the years (from 17 % in 2004 to 30 % in 2008 of the EC External aid budget), while the EC External Budget has remained relatively stable. This means that the proportion of funds accessible for CSOs has decreased from 2004 to 2008. Moreover, EU funding is becoming a highly-competitive environment, as new actors start to be eligible for development funding: private sector and local authorities that compete with NGOs for funding. Furthermore, important multilateral actors (UN and others) compete with NGOs for funding. For instance, 5.8 % of full applications were selected for 100 concept notes received in 2008 in the scope of non-state actors and local authorities calls of proposals.24

The main modalities which are expected to be discussed are as follows in chart 4.

Chart 4: Important modalities for CSOs to be discussed during budget negotiations

Source: Karine Sohet presentation, APRODEV, 18.11.2010, Warsaw

24 Facts and Figures. What the official 2008 figures continue to tell us about EC aid and NGOs, CONCORD 2010, www.dochas.ie/Shared/Files/4/Facts_and_Figures_2010.pdf

19


5.2. Development Effectiveness

Aid effectiveness can be defined as the arrangements for the planning, management and deployment of aid that is efficient, reduces transaction cost and is aimed towards development outcomes including poverty reduction. The key document in this regard is the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, signed by donors and governments in 2005 in order to improve management of bilateral aid flows. The Declaration sets out five principles: harmonisation, alignment, ownership, mutual accountability and managing for results. In 2008, the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) built on the five principles and assessed the progress in their implementation with involvement of more diverse actors including CSOs. It also stated that further progress will be evaluated at the 4th High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, confirmed for 29 November - 1 December 2011.

The Aid Effectiveness principles set by Paris Declaration focus primarily on efficiency. For example, at least 75% of partner countries should have operational development strategies (ownership) or 40% of donor missions to the field should be joint missions (harmonization). CSOs across the globe argue that efficiency of aid transfers is important but not enough that there is a need for a more holistic approach and commitments and that the Paris Declaration is not directly applicable to them. CSOs call for development effectiveness, which is about the impact of the actions of all development actors, including donors and governments, on improving the lives of the poor and marginalized. It promotes sustainable positive change that addresses, within a democratic framework, the root causes as well as the symptoms of poverty, inequality and marginalization. The goals of development effectiveness are centred on the realization of human rights and sustainable development. Particular attention is to be given to the rights of women, the rights of indigenous peoples, and the right to development for developing countries. Achieving development effectiveness and sustainable impacts should be the overarching concern of all development actors – donors, country governments, CSOs and communities.

This debate takes place above all within the Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness, where CSOs across the world have been consulting their development effectiveness and necessary conditions of enabling environment since 2008. The Global Facilitation Group (GFG), gathering 29 member organizations, leads the Open Forum. CONCORD is one of its members and acts as global Secretariat. Representative of FoRS, Daniel Svoboda, is a current co-Chair of the GFG. Governments and international donors are key partners of CSOs in this process (e.g. in a multi-stakeholder Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment, which provides inputs for the OECD/DAC Working Party on Aid Effectiveness). In 2010, the first Global Assembly of the Open Forum was held in Istanbul and the second one is planned for 2011 to mobilize CSOs for the 4th High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea. The consultations among CSOs are expected to bring common declaration on the development effectiveness framework and a common requirement for minimum standards of enabling environment for CSO development work.

Chart 5. Principles of development effectiveness agreed at Istanbul Global Assembly of the Open Forum in 2010

20


Source: Daniel Svoboda presentation, 18.11.2010, Warsaw

21


In 2011, the global consultation process with CSOs on development effectiveness will culminate. CSOs should make operational the results of the Global Assembly of the Open Forum in Istanbul. The following issues should be discussed in detail – the application of the Istanbul Principles of Development Effectiveness in CSO practice; the indicators and procedures that can be used at national level to recognize application of development effectiveness principles; and the minimum standards of an enabling environment to be provided by other development actors. Within the Open Forum consultations, the lessons learnt by the CSOs from EU12 regarding development effectiveness have a particular importance. The experience of FoRS can be used as the reference point. The Czech development CSO platform has already started internal consultations on a code of effectiveness (as a follow-up to its presidency project in 2009), aiming on assessing and increasing the development effectiveness standards. The code of conduct will be available on the website of FoRS once agreed (approx. in mid-2011).

The role for Hungarian and Polish CSOs in 2011 will be to engage their members in global development effectiveness discussions and to create interest among their government officials in this process and support it at the EU level. To be able to advocate effectively, the content and process of consultations needs to be fully understood. Therefore, Hungarian and Polish CSOs are encouraged to join the Open Forum and/or to consult with other CSOs in the CONCORD Working Group on CSO Development Effectiveness.

5.3. Democracy and DevelopmentInterrelations between democracy and development in the EU’s external action policies are currently under

discussion at the EU level.25 The strong interconnection between human rights, democracy and development is gradually being recognized in debates on policy making. The EU development policy is progressively being centred on the complex of living conditions of people and local communities. The EU human rights policy has long ago recognized social and economic rights such as the right to an adequate living standard, right to food, education, medical care and necessary social services as an integral part of the international human rights law and looks for specific, efficient ways of their support in places where they are at risk. EU development policy has adopted good governance (gradually being replaced by a more complex and progressive term democratic governance), democracy and respect for human rights as integral to the process of sustainable development and as its major objectives - democratic governance, empowerment of civil society, gender equality and protection of vulnerable groups as a part of the fight against poverty.26

There is a need to further work out an integrated approach to EU policies linking democracy assistance with development. Several processes are heading in this direction, such as the implementation of the Council conclusions on Democracy Support in the EU’s External Relations27 and the European Transition Compendium. In times of economic crisis and rising global challenges every effort should be made to improve the coherence, efficiency and possible synergies of the EU cooperation provided worldwide.

EU Consensus on Democracy

The idea to build an overarching framework for the EU and the member states’ external policies aimed at support of democracy worldwide goes beyond the current agreement achieved over the Presidency Trio of France, the Czech Republic and Sweden, expressed in the aforementioned Council conclusions on democracy support. Being inspired by the EU Consensus on Development, the democracy consensus is needed to amplify the EU’s political commitment, converge the EU institutions’ and member states’ effort around one strategy and set of principles as well as include the European Parliament and the EU’s civil and political society in the agreement on what such strategy and principles should look like, how the European soft power should operate in providing democracy assistance. In addition, an EU vision of democracy is needed to provide an effective alternative to the other models of democracy that are incompatible with the EU’s understanding of the term.

25 See context of debate in K. Grzybowska, J.Kucharczyk, “Enter the Dragons: Emerging global powers and their impact on Western democracy and development aid policy debate”, PASOS Working Paper 2010

26 The EU Consensus on Development defines poverty (i.e. development) in a complex way: “Considering poverty in relation to human capabilities such as consumption and food security, health, education, rights, the ability to be heard, human security especially for the poor, dignity and decent work so as democratic governance is taken as a part of sustainable development.”

27 2974th EXTERNAL RELATIONS Council meeting Brussels, 17 November 2009

22


The policy developments towards the EU Consensus on Democracy are depicted in the final report “Building consensus about EU policies on Democracy Support”.28 It explains that the idea of EU Consensus on Democracy was developed in 2006 after publication of the discussion paper by the Council General Secretariat on the need to develop a clearer profile of the EU in democracy assistance. During the French Presidency of the EU, COHOM discussed the need to consolidate the EU’s democracy assistance agenda. In the end the Czech Presidency took over the debate in COHOM and set up a task force of both COHOM and CODEV Member States’ representatives to prepare a paper with elements to be further considered by the EU Member States and institutions on the path to reaching the consensus. The Commission and the Council Secretariat contributed by submitting their joint paper on instruments, policies and their current implementation, including recommendations. At the same time, the debate steered by the Czech Presidency and the two papers paved the way to the Council Conclusions on Democracy Support negotiated by the Swedish Presidency and adopted by the Council in November 2009 (discussed in the section below). However, this process can be hampered by numerous challenges at the moment. The major challenge is the institutional uncertainty in the field of democracy assistance and development after the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force and the complex process of creation of the European External Action Service has taken place. At the moment it remains unclear what will be the place and position for “human rights structure” in the European External Action Service, including the presidency of COHOM.29 Also, the share of competencies in development between the European Commission (Development Commissioner, new DG DEVCO) and High Representative stays vague.

The strengthening of the interrelations between democracy and development can be obtained by linking democracy assistance to current debates on development effectiveness. The possibility to reinvigorate discussion on the European Consensus on Democracy might be the review of EU Consensus on Development.30 It is a complex strategy for all EU and member states’ policies in development cooperation, which states the basic principles, objectives and vision for EU development policies. The EU Consensus on Development reaffirms that “progress in the protection of human rights, good governance and democratisation is fundamental for poverty reduction and sustainable development”.31 There is a scope of opportunity to provide for such a debate as Poland has committed to stay focused on development effectiveness during its presidency of the EU in 2011. As democracy support in development is closely linked to the issue of development effectiveness, it can be placed at a Foreign Affairs Council development meeting, or during a joint meeting of development and foreign ministers during the Polish presidency. Such a meeting would be a great opportunity for having another strategic debate. Also, an effort can be made to include democracy support activities into policy schemes such as the fast-track initiative for division of labour that should improve the coordination between the EU and member states in around forty partner countries.32

Implementation of EU Council conclusions on Democracy Support in the EU’s External Relations

As mentioned above, one of the results of a debate on EU Consensus on Democracy was the adoption of “Council Conclusions on Democracy Support in the EU’s External Relations”33 in November 2009. Its implementation is a crucial challenge for 2011. Those conclusions clearly define the further strengthening of the external action of the EU in the area of development and consolidation of democracy, the rule of law, respecting human rights and the fundamental freedoms. At the same time, they refrain from forming a new EU policy aimed at fulfilling the democratization task. Just the opposite – support for democracy is to be realized through all the existing policies and instruments under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and development policy, including such tools as: various financial instruments, election observation missions, European Security and Defence Policy missions and action in multilateral forums. The conclusions were accompanied by the EU Agenda for Action on Democracy Support in EU’s external relations. This Agenda highlights six areas where further action needs to be taken: country-specific approach, dialogue and partnership, EU coherence and coordination, mainstreaming, international cooperation and visibility. The first report on the implementation of the Council conclusions was presented to member states in the beginning of December 2010. It shows that the process is still in its initial phase. At this stage the countries for implementation

28 Report from the conference” Building consensus about EU policies on Democracy Support”, Prague, 9-10 2009, www.epd.eu/uploads/68f92bc22fcba0184b90bbb2e6e73b62.pdf

29 The process of selection of the future COHOM Chair has been launched in the end of 201030 http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/198_dev_review_consensus_development_en.pdf31 http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/eu_consensus_en.pdf32 See the OECD report, “2nd Monitoring Report of the EU Fast Track Initiative on Division of Labour” http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/43/45488935.pdf, 200933 Council conclusions on Democracy Support in the EU’s External Relations, Brussels, 17.11.2009.

23


of pilot projects were chosen.34 However, the report foresees developing the methodology for implementation over the pilot phase. The focus will be on a “country-specific approach”. The process of pilot implementation will include: a democracy-centred country profile and gap analysis, a list of ongoing co-operation (and evaluation of its efficiency) in the field of democracy support, analysis of whether various democracy-related contributions (e.g. from geographic programmes and political dialogue to the European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy and the Instrument for Stability) are complementary, and a list of all relevant stakeholders and their performance.

The process risks a slowdown due to other important issues on the EU agenda (i.e. combating economic crisis) and lack of political support of the majority of member states to push for its further development. Nevertheless the CSO community can make an effort to reinvigorate the process. This can be achieved first by CSO monitoring of the implementation of the Agenda for Action agreed as a part of the Council conclusions in November 2009. CSOs should ensure that a report on pilot projects is submitted within the proposed timeline, opened to public consultations. They should also offer assistance in the further implementation of these pilot projects. It is important notably for the reason that the current report presented in December 2010 by the EEAS Joint Team is not clear regarding the way forward after finishing the pilot phase. Second, in order to put it on a higher political level, an advocacy effort can be made towards the Polish and other upcoming presidencies to push for second Council Conclusions to be completed (these are, however, supposed to be concluded at the end of 2010). In addition to their initiators, there are definitely several countries interested in continuing this process, such as Sweden and the Czech Republic and also the Netherlands, Finland, the UK and France.

Moreover, the CSOs should push for the integration of Council Conclusions on Democracy Support with the other policy areas in the external dimension, namely security policy. The ‘complementarities’ between democracy support and EU development assistance should be looked for systematically in areas such as public administration reform and institutional strengthening (in particular in view of the expansion of the use of instruments such as the Budget Support and the Sector Wide Approaches).

Elaboration of the EU Multiannual Financial Framework after 2013 represents an opportunity to discuss inclusion of the objectives of Council Conclusions into financial mechanisms (including EIDHR, DCI and geographic instruments). Namely ENPI is very relevant to Eastern Partnership, one of the priorities of the Polish Presidency. From the point of view of democracy support, the issues at stake are, for example, inter-instrumental coherence, gap assessment and adjustment of current EU instruments (at the regulatory level) to afford greater flexibility going beyond the project cycle requirements in order to be able to support processes of change.

The Governance Initiative for ACP countries and Africa, and the Governance Incentive Tranche present another opportunity. These have been identified by the joint team of the Commission and EEAS as suitable financial instruments for democracy support. The Governance Initiative for ACP countries and Africa aims at supporting governance in partner countries. Besides its support to the African Peer Review Mechanism, its main element is the Governance Incentive Tranche (GIT) – a mechanism that gave the ACP partner countries access to additional funding according to their commitments to achieve concrete results in their democratic governance reform programmes. €2.7 billion from the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) were reserved for such incentives. In order to benefit from the GIT, partner countries were encouraged to put forward a Governance Action Plan (GAP) that was annexed to the Country Strategy Paper. A qualitative assessment of plans presented by partner countries determined the allocation of the financial incentive that was integrated in and topped up the overall country allocation (the tranche). The GIT has laid a foundation for most ACP countries to commit themselves to implement governance reforms in different areas.

European Transition Compendium

The European Transition Compendium (ETC), prepared by an independent expert in 2009/2010, is a study on the use of the transition experience of the new EU Member States in development cooperation. The compendium intends to bring together transition experiences in areas as diverse as economic, social and agricultural reforms and to provide lessons learned that should support processes in developing countries.

The idea of ETC was based on EU Consensus on Development. The aim was to capitalize on the experiences of new member states (such as transition management) and to strengthen the role of these countries as new donors.

34 Moldova – for Eastern Neighbourhood, Kyrgyzstan – Central Asia, Lebanon – for Southern Neighbourhood, Ghana, Benin and Solomon Islands – for ACP, Bolivia – for Latin America, Mongolia, Philippines, Indonesia and Maldives – in Asia

24


On 18 May 2009 the Council Conclusions were adopted, confirming the commission of ETC. In order to improve aid effectiveness, the Council underlined the importance of sharing experience gained and lessons learnt and using the best the comparative advantages, such as the specific transition management expertise.

However, the question is: What should the next step be to get the European Transition Compendium implemented? According to the European Commission, the follow-up should involve an interactive online database of “transformation experience” as a programming and policy tool.35 It could also be capacity building of EU12 as a continuation of the present Capacity Building Scheme or launching of new twinning activities using the transformation experience, which needs to be specified in pilot projects. The discussion being held is on whether this transition “know how” should be mainly offered to Eastern European and Central Asian partner countries, or whether there is also potential to apply this specific expertise in ACP and DCI countries.

5.4. Combating Climate ChangeCounteracting climate change is a high priority of the EU agenda. Even though there was some progress in the

last UNFCCC conference in Cancun (Cancun Agreement) the political developments are still slow in this area. The issue is closely related to development cooperation since the negative effects of climate change are mostly impacting the poor communities in developing countries.

With respect to the ways in which the national platform and CSOs should engage in these debates, it is recommended to follow the EU agenda and keep a low profile because numerous initiatives are already in place. Due to the economic crisis, politicians and businesses are currently paying less attention to climate issues. From the CSOs point of view, the EU should keep the UN process alive as there is no other option for a global solution. In order to achieve this goal, a new proposal must be developed. It should aim at higher mitigation targets, more advanced negotiations and supporting developing countries with adaptation to unavoidable climate change impacts.

Indeed, in May 2010 the European Commission issued the communication “Options to move beyond 20% GHG Emissions Reduction”36, in which it tries to find different ways to achieve the target of 30% emissions reduction in the EU. The policy options can differ from emission allowances from the ETS sector, emission standards, and energy efficiency measures to carbon taxation in the ETS sector and use of EU funds. This communication was welcomed in particular by France, UK, Germany, and Denmark. In terms of concrete projects, the issues at stake are the implementation of EU fast start finance to adapt on the negative effects of climate change and to assist in developing low carbon economies in developing countries (see Annex 3).

The year 2011 will abound with climate debate, especially as there are numerous EC proposals in energy policy, which interlinks with climate. Noteworthy is that the possibility of reaching a new, legally-binding agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will be discussed.37 This is important, as at the end of 2011, the work on adoption of a legally-binding agreement on COP 17 in Durban (South Africa) will be continued in addition to other agreements. Second, as the Multiannual Financial debate begins, the role for climate change issues is also at stake. This is crucial if climate priorities are to be incorporated into major headings of the EU budget.

Hungarian and Polish presidencies must remain honest brokers in climate issues. Even though these countries would not like to support radical steps, they will act as moderators of the discussion. Therefore, the CSOs have to stay active and undertake advocacy activities. An important task would be to strengthen links between national and international environmental NGOs and to cooperate with Brussels-based NGOs specializing in climate change18 through the exchange of information on political developments on both the EU and national levels during presidency. Czech experiences are very relevant in this respect. In the case of the Czech Presidency, the climate change priorities have already been worked out by the Presidency Trio and led by Sweden. Czech environmental NGOs contributed to the Czech Presidency with their analyses. In particular, the coalition of NGOs interested in climate change issues was established, which led to several common activities, such as sending lobby letters.

35 http://www.developmentaid.org/viewjob-58811-EUROPEAN-TRANSITION-COMPENDIUM-%E2%80%93-ON-LINE-INTERACTIVE-DATABASE-%28E.C.M.Electronic-Content-Management%29

36 ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/2010-05-26communication.pdf37 EC Communication: International climate policy post-Copenhagen: Acting now to reinvigorate global action on climate change {SEC(2010) 261}, 9 March

2010

25

6. ANNEX 1 – POLISH/HUNGARIAN/CZECH OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT/PLATFORM PRIORITIES

Hungarian major government presidency priorities38:

1. Growth, jobs and social inclusion

• Strengthening of the European economic co-ordination and the introduction of new instruments

• Implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy

• Adoption of the Single Market Act

2. Stronger Europe – building on the foundations and saving the future

• Review of the CAP and the cohesion policy

• Creation of a common energy policy

• Climate change - the Hungarian Presidency is committed to the implementation of the Cancún decisions in the EU and to further advance negotiations with a view to the next negotiation rounds.

• Adoption and the implementation of the European Danube Region Strategy

3. A Union close to its citizens

• Accomplishment of the Stockholm Programme

• Protection of citizen’s rights

4. Enlarging responsibly and engaging globally

• Concluding the Croatian accession negotiations; continuing the integration process of the Western Balkans

• Strengthening the relations between the Union and the six Eastern Partners

• Enlargement of the Schengen zone to Bulgaria and Romania

• Development – “The EU’s development cooperation policy is also an integral part of the EU’s external relations. As the world’s greatest donor the Union plays a major role in the global fight against poverty. The Commission’s upcoming proposal on the renewal of the common development cooperation policy will be an important milestone and relevant discussions will start during the Hungarian Presidency.”

Hungarian national platform objectives:

1. To increase interaction between Hungarian NGDOs & Hungarian authorities, by improving, among other, advocacy skills:

• Increased capacity in ODA policy among key stakeholders

• Improved advocacy skills of Hungarian NGDOs

• Improved capacity in communication and fundraising among Hungarian and NMS NGDOs

38 Programme Publisher on 10 November 2010, http://www.mfa.gov.hu/kum/en/bal/european_union/eu_pres_2011/priorities.htm; See as well the future Spanish, Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies to: Coreper/Council available at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st16/st16771.en09.pdf, 16August 2010

26

6. ANNEX 1 – POLISH/HUNGARIAN/CZECH OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT/PLATFORM PRIORITIES

2. To strengthen coordination and networking between Hungarian and European CSOs (especially from NMS), and Eastern Neighbourhood CSOs.

• Transition experiences relevant for development cooperation in the NMS countries identified and shared

• Increased knowledge sharing among development actors from Western Europe, the NMS and EN.

3. To promote Development Education & Awareness Raising in Hungary.

• Increased awareness among the Hungarian public and decision-makers relating to the MDGs and international volunteering

• Improved cooperation among local actors responsible for the promotion of development education

• Improved policies relating to the LDC and Africa in Hungary

Polish government preliminary presidency priorities:

• Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020

• Relations with Eastern Europe

• Internal market

• Strengthening the external dimension of energy policy

• Common Security and Defence Policy

• Intellectual capital

Polish national platform objectives:

• Work towards a consensus on interrelations between democracy and development, involving Polish and EU development CSOs;

• Improve effectiveness and quality of Polish development CSO actions;

• Strengthen the multi-stakeholder dialogue on global education in Poland and promote this model in the EU;

• Produce input for and participate in key ongoing global and EU debates on development (effectiveness, role of NGOs in new financial framework, PCD, mobility, and others).

27

7. ANNEX 2 – DEVELOPMENT TOPICS AND PROCESSES IN 2011

1) Aid/Development Effectiveness

DAC/OECD statistics released in April and Aid figures for 2010. High Level Forum on aid effectiveness in Seoul in November/December. Development Ministers will come up with the EU position in October

2) Review of the EU Consensus in Development from 2005

This review began during the Belgium presidency and concluded during the Hungarian and the Polish presidency. There is a risk that the progressive language used in EU Consensus on Development will disappear due to economic crisis and the lack of will of the member states to commit to development goals.

Post Millennium Development Goal summit and new development paradigm.

Implementation of the European External Action Service

3) Reform of the Common Agriculture Policy

There is a direct link between EU agriculture reform and development; therefore, the reform should be carefully followed. Moreover it will have significant impact on the EU budget. The European Commission communication is expected at the end of 2010.

4) Financial instruments and EU budget (new financial perspective)

In the second half of 2011, negotiations on the budget and structure of the new EU financial perspective will become a big priority. It is a crucial moment for highlighting the importance of financial instruments for development and maintaining the EU expenditure on development.

5) Financial Transaction Tax

Clearly, it will be high on the agenda of the G8 summit to be held in France in 2011.

6) Review of the consensus on humanitarian aid

7) Several European Commission Communications are expected in 2010/2011 on:

Horn of AfricaAfghanistanBudget support (under the Belgian Presidency)

8) Financial and economic crises

European Council Summits.

9) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change summits:

The sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) and the sixth Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) will be held in Cancún, Mexico, from 29 November to 10 December 2010.

The 2011 COP 17 is to be hosted by South Africa from 28 November to 9 December 2011.

28

8. ANNEX 3 – TIMEFRAME FOR CRUCIAL DEVELOPMENT EVENTS IN 2011

HUNGARIAN PRESIDENCyFebruary World Social Forum in Senegal

March/April ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in Hungary

April EC Spring Package (Aid Effectiveness and setting up for the joint position, post-2015 agenda), Release of the DAC/OECD figures 2010, End of the Quadrilogue process

SpringEastern Partnership Conference

May Development Foreign Affairs Council – launch of the Concord report

June G8 summit in France (focus on innovative way of development financing)

POLISH PRESIDENCyJuly European Commission proposal for new Common Agriculture Policy

July European Development Days in Poland

AutumnEastern Partnership Summit

NovemberEC report on PCD (decided during Foreign Affairs Council)

DecemberHigh Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Seoul39

39 See detailed agenda leading to the Forum available on http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/3/44592876.pdf8. ANNEX 3 – BASIC INFORMATION ON

29

The Millennium Development Goals – the development commitments of the EU and its member states are defined in the EU Consensus on Development. In 2010 the United Nations will hold a summit on the MDGs to assess and secure their advancement. While important progress has been made, the achievement of MDGs is lagging behind and has even reversed in large parts of the world.

The Millennium Development Goals are highlighted in the NGOs presidency programme of the platform trio (Spain, Belgium, Hungary).40 This programme focuses on the financing, quantity and quality of EU Aid and its effectiveness in fighting poverty as well as on the Policy Coherence for Development. In the implementation of this programme each national platform devotes special attention to certain policy sectors (climate change, food security, trade, satisfactory work and gender policies) and a specific geographical area: the Spanish platform focuses on Latin America; the Belgian platform on Africa and the Hungarian platform on the Eastern Partnership countries.

Policy Coherence for Development – the commitment established in the European Consensus on Development to encourage coherence in policies (the creation of suitable institutional structures that have the mandate and capacity to incite policy coherence for development). The EU has made a certain amount of progress, such as preparing and publishing the report on coherence, approving the aid target for PMA (Pays moins avance) and Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC).

The three platforms – Belgian, Hungarian and Spanish have emphasized the call for policy coherence for development in their Trio Programme by focussing on the following issues: climate change, trade, food security.

Structured dialogue – this is an initiative of the European Commission (officially launched on 23 March) to discuss the involvement of civil society organisations (CSOs) & Local Authorities (LAs) in EC development cooperation, in order to make all stakeholders more effective. According to CONCORD Structured Dialogue Principles Paper the postulates are as follows: increased field expertise in beneficiary countries based on local analysis and improved consultation between EU, other donors and recipients, regular structured and institutionalized dialogue between EC and CSOs, work on EU strategy to involve CSOs in the sphere of development; access of CSOs to EU development aid.

The salient goal of the Structured Dialogue is to have flexible and tailor-made funding mechanisms.This process is led by the so-called “Quadrilogue” process involving EC, EP, MS and 10 platforms; in the frame

of the Accra Agenda of Action.41

The EU fast-start finance:42 during the European Council meeting on 10 – 11 December 2009, member states committed to fast-start finance from the EU and its 27 member states for developing countries of 2,4 billion EUR annually for the year 2010. This represents approximately one-third of the collective fast-start finance commitment subsequently made by the developed countries under the Copenhagen Accord. In March 2010, the European Council reiterated that the EU and its member states shall implement their commitment (confirmed by Ministers of Finance in May). The Commission and 25 member states have integrated their individual pledges into their internal budgetary procedures. Bilateral and multilateral financing channels have been chosen both on the EU and the member states level. In any case, fast-start finance is a process of ‘learning by doing’. The EU and its member states will continue in dialogues with the developing countries to get to know their needs and expectations better. Lessons learnt shall be very valuable in helping to decide where to direct funding not yet allocated, thus increasing its effectiveness and improving targeting of the most immediate needs of developing countries. Experience with fast-start finance will be key in shaping the post-2012 climate finance architecture.

40 Ibid.41 The AAA was prepared through a broad-based process of dialogue on both national and international levels: through the work of WP-EFF and its joint ventures,

regional preparatory consultations, the partner country contact group, the Consensus Group, the Advisory Group on Civil Society, and the non-DAC donor group. The views of more than 80 partner countries, approximately 60 CSOs, all DAC donors, and many non-traditional providers of development assistance informed the AAA. The investment of time, energy, and financial resources by all participants in this process resulted in an action-oriented agenda that can support accelerated progress in aid effectiveness.

42 EU Fast-start finance - interim report June 2010, http://www.climnet.org/component/docman/cat_view/321-external-documents.html.9.

8. ANNEX 3 – TIMEFRAME FOR CRUCIAL DEVELOPMENT EVENTS IN 2011

30

9. ANNEX 4 – CLIMATE CHANGE

1) List of EU policies to meet Kyoto

List of policies start dates Car emission standards agreement 1998Renewable energy support mechanisms 2003Cap-and-trade system (EU ETS) 2005Energy performance of buildings 2006 CHP generation support 2007Energy standards for appliances 2007Kyoto target of -8% from 1990 levels by 2008-12 for EU15Car emission standards NOW MANDATORY 2008Renewable energy support TO 2020 2008Cap-and-trade system (ETS) 2020 REVIEW 2008Energy performance of buildings REVIEWED 2009 Aviation emissions, included in ETS 2007Light duty vehicles emissions standards underway- 2020 targets for EU27: -20/30% GHGs, 20% RES, 20% EE- Communications on Energy 2020 Strategy and Infrastructure – October/November 2010- Extraordinary Energy Council – 4 February 2010 - Energy Efficiency Plan – 1st quarter 2011- Low Carbon Economy 2050 Roadmap – 1st quarter 2011 - Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe – 2nd quarter 2011- Energy Roadmap 2050 – 3rd quarter 2011- Directive on Energy Efficiency and Savings – 3rd quarter 2011

2) Timeframe for crucial events related to climate change in 2011

HUNGARIAN PRESIDENCy

• February (4th) – extra EU summit on energy• March – Environment Council & EU summit• April? – Informal Environment Council• June – Environment Council & EU summit• April – United Nations Climate Change Talks, Bangkok

POLISH PRESIDENCy• July – informal Environment Council • August – likely extra session (1 week)• September – extra EU summit?• October – likely extra session (1-2 weeks)• October – Environment Council & EU summit• December – Environment Council & EU summit• December – COP17/CMP7, South Africa

31

10. ANNEX 5 – THE EU MULTIANNUAL FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK

1) External Action Instruments – 2007–2013

2) Horizontal instruments

Source: Karine Sohet presentation, APRODEV, 18.11.2010, Warsaw

Instrument for Stability

€ 2 billion

Humanitarianaid

€ 5.6 billion

Macro-FinancialAssistance

€ 0.7 billion

Human Rightsand Democracy

€ 1.1 billion

10th EDF2008–2013

€ 23.97 billion

Development Co-operation

Instrument DCIDeveloping countries notother than EDF, ENPI, PAI + thematic programmes

€ 17 billion

European Neighbourhood &

Partnership Instrument ENPI

East Europe, Caucasus, Mediterranean countries

€ 11 billion

Co-operation with industralised

countries

€ 172 million

32

11. ANNEX 6 - KEY LINKS AND CONTACTS

1) Documents on the EU Development Policy after the Lisbon Treaty:

The EC: Your Guide to the Lisbon Treaty, http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/others/84/en.pdf

Elmar Brok Report “Report on the proposal for a Council decision establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service, adopted by the European Parliament on 6 July, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/reports.do?language=EN

CONCORD, Development policy and the future EU institutional framework - March 2010, http://www.concordeurope.org/Files/media/0_internetdocumentsENG/4_Publications/3_CONCORDs_positions_and_studies/Positions2010/Concord-EEAS-institutional-reforms-note-12March10-FINAL.pdf

M. Gavas, s. Maxwell, Options for architectural reform in EU development aid, ODI, www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/3610.pdf

Development-proofing the European External Action Service, Eurostep, http://www.eurostep.org/wcm/archive-eurostep-weekly/1061-development-proofing-the-european-external-action-service.html

2) Useful resources for submission of presidency projects:

Punt.sud. EuropAid Helpdesk (website, on-line support, hands-on support, toolkits) – http://www.puntosud.org/helpdesk-europeaid/doku.php

CONCORD Reader – check with Concord when the new version corresponding to the EuropeAid Standard contract 2008 and the “financial reader” are published.

Civil Society Helpdesk of EuropeAid (since April 2010) - https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/aidco/index.php/Main_Page

Presentations and documents from a seminar on financial and contractual management of EC/EuropeAid funded projects organized by CONCORD FDR and EuropeAid in May 2009 (in 2010 another seminar was organized) http://www.fors.cz/cz/novinky/novinky/seminar-fors-financni-a-kontraktacni-management-projektu-financovanch-z-europeaid

External evaluation of FoRS presidency project – http://www.fors.cz/assets/files/CSOEff/PPEvalRep.pdf

33

CONCORD – the European NGO Confederation for Relief and Development(the European platform of development CSOs)Tel: +32 2 743 87 60; +32 2 743 87 60E-mail: [email protected]: www.concordeurope.orgContact to be involved in Policy and Advocacy on the EU level, to promote own presidency activities, seek cooperation etc.

Action Aid(International anti-poverty agency)Tel: 00 32 0 2 502 55 01 Contact to be involved in Policy and Advocacy on the EU level, to promote own presidency activities, seek cooperation etc.

The APRODEV(the European platform of development and humanitarian aid organisations working closely together with the World Council of Churches)Tel: +32 2234 5660E-mail: [email protected]: www.aprodev.euContact to be involved in Policy and Advocacy on the EU level, to promote own presidency activities, seek cooperation etc.

CAN Climate Action Network Europe (Europe’s network working on climate and energy issues)Tel: +32 (0) 28944670Email: [email protected]: www.climnet.orgContact to be involved in Policy and Advocacy on the EU level, to promote own presidency activities, seek cooperation across the EU, to obtain expert knowledge on economic globalization, climate change etc.

FoRS – Czech Forum for Development Co-operation(the Czech platform of development CSOs)Tel/Fax: +420 222 522 480 Email: [email protected] (Director), [email protected] (Policy Officer)Web: www.fors.czContact to learn from the Czech presidency experience, learn more about specific topics mentioned in this report and cooperate in these areas with Czech CSOs.

Glopolis – Prague Global Policy Institute(the Czech think tank focusing on global issues)Tel.: +420 272 661 132-3E-mail: [email protected] (Head of Development and Climate Policy Programme)Web: www.glopolis.orgContact to learn from the Czech Presidency experience, to obtain expert knowledge on economic globalization, climate change, food security and other development issues.

Climate Coalition(the Czech coalition of CSOs involved in climate change and development issues)Web: www.zmenaklimatu.czRepresented by CTE – Centre for Transport and Energy (think tank focusing on environmental impacts of transportation and energy) Tel/fax: +420 274 816 571 E-mail: [email protected]: http://cde.ecn.cz/Contact to learn from the Czech Presidency experience, to obtain expert knowledge on climate change, to cooperate with Czech CSOs involved in Climate Coalition

Demas – Association for Democracy Assistance and Human Rights(the Czech platform of CSOs focusing on democracy and human rights)Tel.: +420 774 490 824E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]: www.demas.czContact to learn from the Czech Presidency experience, to obtain expert knowledge on democracy and human rights.

Green Circle(the Czech platform of environmental CSOs)Tel.: 222 517143, 724 11 27 82E-mail: [email protected]: www.zelenykruh.czContact to learn from the Czech Presidency experience, to obtain expert knowledge on environmental issues, to cooperate with Czech environmental CSOs

Grupa Zagranica(Polish platform of development CSOs)Tel.: +48 22 299 01 05 +48 22 299 01 05Fax: +48 22 207 25 60E-mail: [email protected]: www. zagranica.org.pl Contact to coordinate presidency plans and activities with other Polish CSOs.

HAND – Hungarian Association of NGOs for Development and Humanitarian Aid(Hungarian platform of development CSOs)Tel: +36-1-209-9240, E-mail: office @ hand.org.hu, [email protected]: www.hand.org.huContact to coordinate presidency plans and activities with Hungarian CSOs.

11. ANNEX 5 - KEY LINKS AND CONTACTS

3) Contacts for platforms and think tanks: